Blaze News original: Biden praised on CNN, MSNBC months ago for promise not to pardon Hunter. Now there's egg on a few faces.



It's indeed a salve for the conservative soul to watch numerous prominent voices against Donald Trump speak so glowingly months ago about President Joe Biden's promise that he wouldn't pardon his son Hunter — only to have that very thing come to pass Sunday.

Tom Elliott of news and video outlet Grabien posted a nine-minute supercut of anti-Trump pundits and cable news talking heads singing Biden's praises for his no-pardon pledge and using it to rip Trump to shreds, pointing out the "contrast" with Trump's complaints that the Justice Department was weaponized against him.

'It was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction.'

Blaze News took a deeper look at the clips, and one of the first things to stand out is how often the prominent elitists in them use the same words and phrases (such as "stark" and "contrast" — and, for variety — "stark contrast") in their efforts to boost Biden and tear down Trump.

To wit: A guest of MSNBC's Joy Reid — Democrat U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida — told her in one clip that "the Democrats stand for the rule of law. Remember law and order. ... It is amazing to see the stark contrast between how Democrats handled today and how Republicans handled this whole thing over the last couple of weeks."

Another clip shows former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara telling MSNBC's Chris Hayes that Biden "could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son. ... Pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is. In a million years, if the shoe were on the other foot."

Oh, how the worm has turned. Check out the carnage:

'One side: Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other, Republicans and Trump protecting Trump.'


CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp spoke during a segment titled "Biden says he won't pardon son Hunter if he's convicted" and attempted to draw a distinction between Biden and Trump: "The contrast is profound. To sit there and say, 'I'm not going to intervene in the legal process, and I wouldn't pardon my son.' ... One side: Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other, Republicans and Trump protecting Trump." You can view the clip here at the 40-second mark.

Cupp on Monday morning posted the following on X: "It doesn’t get said enough, but Trump’s enduring legacy will be convincing BOTH parties to lower the bar, and that possessing moral authority on anything is no longer a currency that matters."

Her statement was in response to the following post by never-Trump author Charlie Sykes: "Smart person texts me: 'Joe Biden has just removed the issue of pardons from the political arena for the next four years, and Trump probably once again can’t believe his own dumb f***ing luck at this point.' Sadly, I think he’s right."

'A current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son ... again, it's all about the contrast.'


In another clip (1:06 mark), Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" stated that "a current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son ... again, it's all about the contrast."

The clip cuts to Willie Geist of "Morning Joe" with this take: "President Biden saying, 'I will respect whatever this jury decides' versus Donald Trump after he was convicted on 34 counts saying the entire system is rigged against him."

Brzezinski pushed out an audible snicker after Geist's pronouncement.

'How can the Justice Department be weaponized against Trump when all of that is happening?'


Over a screen title that reads, "The right accuses the DOJ of weaponizing the justice system despite Hunter Biden's prosecution & guilty verdict," MSNBC's Joy Reid states that "the president said he won't touch it; he said he's not going to pardon his son, and it seems that [U.S. Attorney General] Merrick Garland let it go through. How can the Justice Department be weaponized against Trump when all of that is happening?"

Democrat U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida replied, "The Democrats stand for the rule of law. Remember law and order. ... It is amazing to see the stark contrast between how Democrats handled today and how Republicans handled this whole thing over the last couple of weeks."

You can view the clip here at the 3:47 mark. You can view the full June 11 segment here.

'Those words so completely contrast with his opponent.'


Katy Tur said in another MSNBC clip (7:36 mark) — with a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty of 3 felony gun charges" — that the president insisted he would respect the outcome of his son's case and that "those words so completely contrast with what his opponent, now a convicted felon himself, continues to say about the U.S courts."

'The contrast to how Trump has behaved, how Trump has treated the rule of law ... this was a good day for the system.'


Chuck Todd — over an MSNBC screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty of 3 felony gun charges" — had the following to say: "The contrast to how Trump has behaved, how Trump has treated the rule of law ... this was a good day for the system, a good day for sort of America as an example of how the rule of law should work." You can view the clip here at the 7:58 mark.

'Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son, he would not commute his sentence. How stark is this difference?'


Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC's "The Nightcap" — over a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden convicted on gun charges" — said the following to her panel: "The latest attack is that Joe Biden has politicized and weaponized the DOJ, right? That was the whole argument around Donald Trump's conviction, and this week, of course, Hunter Biden was found guilty, and Joe Biden has very clearly said he would not pardon his son, he would not commute his sentence. How stark is this difference? I mean, how can Republicans keep making this argument now that Joe Biden has really put it out there?" You can view the clip here at the 1:28 mark.

'He is not pardoning his son ... he is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country.'


Speaking to MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace over a screen title that reads, "Trump, GOP call on SCOTUS to respond to guilty verdict," former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann says the following: “He is not pardoning his son, which he could do. These are federal charges. He is not doing that. He is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country.” After a cut in the clip, Weissmann adds, "If you want to know if he believes it, you can see what is actually happening with his own son." You can view the clip here at the 2:01 mark.

'There's an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, "The jury found [Hunter] guilty. This is how it’s supposed to work. Period. Paragraph. End of story."'


Another MSNBC clip (3:09 mark) features political commentator Molly Jong-Fast — over a screen title that reads "Press [secretary] doesn't rule out potential that Biden could commute Hunter's sentence" — offering the following take: “I think Joe Biden has a chance here to stand up for the rule of law, to say ... the law is the law, no matter who it is, no matter if it’s Trump or Biden. And remember, part of Trump-ism’s dangerousness is that it tears down institutions, important institutions of our democracy. So there's an opportunity here for Biden to say, you know, 'The jury found [Hunter] guilty. This is how it’s supposed to work. Period. Paragraph. End of story.'”

Fox News reported that Jong-Fast — after learning Biden pardoned his son — told MSNBC, "I, so, I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry."

'You heard the president say he would accept the outcome of the case; I know no other word for that but "presidential."'


An MSNBC clip (4:17 mark) — with a screen title that reads, "Hunter Biden found guilty in federal gun trial" — shows former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal saying the following to host Jonathan Capehart: "For years, these conservatives have been crowing about a politicized Justice Department, Biden politicizing it, and so on. What happened today? The Justice Department convicted the president’s own son — his only living son. You heard the president say he would accept the outcome of the case; I know no other word for that but 'presidential.'”

Capehart replied, "[Biden] even went so far as to say he wouldn’t pardon his son. That’s how much respect he has for the system.”

Interestingly, Katyal on Sunday night posted a link to an October Politico story titled, "Trump says he’s open to pardoning Hunter Biden." Katyal wrote above the link, "Just putting this out there ..."

'It was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction.'


CNN's Jim Acosta — over a screen title that reads, "Pres. Biden says he will not pardon his son" — asked author Chris Whipple for his take on Biden's declaration.

Whipple — author of "The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden's White House" — replied by saying, "I thought it was extraordinary. I mean, it was a moment of just moral clarity on the part of Joe Biden and couldn't have been in starker contrast to the way Donald Trump has handled his own conviction."

You can view the clip here at the 4:45 mark.

'He could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son ... pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is.'


In an MSNBC clip (5:05 mark) with a screen title that reads, "Biden: 'I accept the outcome' of Hunter Biden trial," former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara told host Chris Hayes the following: "He could still pardon him; he said he won't do that ... given that it's his son ... pause for a moment and think about how unbelievable that is. In a million years, if the shoe were on the other foot" — Hayes apparently uttered a dismissive huff off camera in this moment — "and Donald Trump was facing the prospect of his son being prosecuted by ... a Biden holdover or Obama holdover prosecutor, not in a million, million years would that have happened. So ... some of the people on the right, the people who support Donald Trump, are trying to cast this as some sort of clever ops program."

A longer clip of Bharara's statement was posted on the "All In with Chris Hayes" X account on June 11.

'It's a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law, and the other doesn't.'


In an MSNBC clip (5:43 mark), Democrat U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts stated the following on June 11: "Hunter Biden was found guilty by a jury of his peers, just like Donald Trump. Because this is our justice system at work. The divide here is stunning. It's a great reminder that one political party remains committed to the rule of law, and the other doesn't."

According to The Hill, McGovern also said, "The contrast today is just staggering. Apparently, when a Republican is convicted, it’s weaponization. But when a Democrat is convicted — the president’s son, no less — that’s justice. I mean, give me a break."

'One of the things that anybody who spends time around Joe Biden comes to know is that he's had this long-running focus on how much he is bothered by abuses of power.'


Over a CNN screen title that reads, "Biden, for first time, says he won't commute son's sentence," New Yorker writer Evan Osnos — who also authored "Joe Biden: The Life, the Run, and What Matters Now" — said that Biden is "really" saying that "I don't plan to use the powers of the office, the powers of the presidency, to provide private relief for my family." Osnos added that, "In a sense, he's staking out a pretty bright line between being, as he says, a president and a dad, and that's not just an emotional expression; he's in effect saying, 'I don't think that I should, I don't have a right, even though it's legal' — and God knows it must be tempting — 'to use this power in a way that is not available to so many other Americans facing similar kinds of struggles.'"

Osnos said in another cut, "There's a kind of old-school, sort of flinty core to [Biden's] conception of how you are to be in the system, how you are to be as a person — a moral person — and ultimately how to contend with questions of power. One of the things that anybody who spends time around Joe Biden comes to know is that he's had this long-running focus on how much he is bothered by abuses of power."

You can view the clip here at the 6:06 mark.

BONUS: 'They're not even his sons; they're just sons of b***hes.'


Another clip (2:30 mark) features Ana Navarro of "The View" and sports a CNN logo on the bottom right of the screen — however, the clip appears to be from the June 14 episode of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," which began airing Saturdays on CNN earlier this year.

Still, the clip is worth including in this rundown. In it Navarro stated: "Joe Biden has gotten asked if he would pardon his son; he has said no. ... On the other side, you've got Donald Trump who has said that he will pardon the January 6 insurrectionists. They're not even his sons; they're just sons of bitches."

You might be surprised (or maybe not) that Navarro posted a few X entries this week after hearing that Biden did, in fact, pardon his son — and she's backing him all the way.

"Good for @JoeBiden," Navarro noted Monday. "America elected a convicted felon. That convicted felon pardoned his son-in-law’s father and appointed him Ambassador to France. If you support that, I don’t want to hear jack-s**t about Biden pardoning his son."

She also posted Monday that "Woodrow Wilson pardoned his brother-in-law, Hunter deButts. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger. Donald Trump pardoned his daughter’s father-in-law, Charlie Kushner. And just appointed him Ambassador to France. But tell me again how Joe Biden 'is setting precedent'?"

Not to put too fine a point on it, Navarro posted the following on Tuesday: "Reading all these Trumpers offended Biden LIED! Trump lied about bone spurs, lied about his taxes, lied on his bank loan applications, lied to his wives, lied about hush-money payments, lied about the 2020 election results, lied about Haitians eating cats & dogs ... shall I go on??"

Could it be that she doth protest too much? Nah.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Cutting Waste Is Not A Partisan Idea’: Trump’s DOGE Secures Support From Dem Lawmakers

'Should not be a partisan issue

Dem rep becomes first to join forces with GOP in House DOGE caucus



Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida became the first Democrat to join the bipartisan House DOGE caucus on Tuesday.

The DOGE caucus was formed after President-elect Donald Trump announced the new Department of Government Efficiency, which former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamay and tech mogul Elon Musk would be leading in the incoming administration. Although the House caucus has solely consisted of Republicans until this point, Moskowitz expressed that government efficiency "should not be a partisan issue."

'The Caucus should look at the bureaucracy that DHS has become and include recommendations to make Secret Service and FEMA independent federal agencies with a direct report to the White House.'

"Today, I will join the Congressional DOGE Caucus, because I believe that streamlining government processes and reducing ineffective government spending should not be a partisan issue," Moskowitz said in a Tuesday statement. "I've been clear that there are ways we can reorganize our government to make it work better for the American people."

Moskowitz specifically pointed to the DHS and the many federal agencies under its purview, including FEMA and the Secret Service.

"Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security, while very necessary, has gotten too big," Moskowitz continued. "The Caucus should look at the bureaucracy that DHS has become and include recommendations to make Secret Service and FEMA independent federal agencies with a direct report to the White House."

Both federal agencies have been under severe scrutiny over the last few months. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been critical of the Secret Service following the first assassination attempt against Trump back in July. FEMA also received backlash in November after reports revealed that agency officials directed employees to skip houses devastated by Hurricane Milton in Florida if they had visible pro-Trump displays and signs.

"It is not practical to have 22 agencies under this one department," Moskowitz continued. "I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to remove FEMA and Secret Service from DHS."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Take Your Medication And Leave’: James Comer Claps Back At Dem Rep Who Questioned Why Biden Hasn’t Been Impeached

Moskowitz demanded to know when the impeachment vote would occur

Rep. Jared Moskowitz Apologizes For Joke About Gov. Kristi Noem, Kim Jong Un

'It was a joke'

Did Congress really just 'criminalize Christianity' or make parts of the New Testament illegal?



Several Republican lawmakers and political commentators are expressing concern that a controversial new law could criminalize parts of the New Testament.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, said on Wednesday that she voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews."

— (@)

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — and commentators like Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk — voiced the same concern.

"The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill!" Gaetz claimed.

It's true the bill uses a working definition of "anti-Semitism" established by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which claims that contemporary anti-Semitism includes:

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

So does the bill criminalize parts of the New Testament, or at least expose Christians to the possibility of breaking the law?

According to Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the bill's co-sponsors, absolutely not.

"Those pushing that nonsense are truly idiotic and irrational. The bill does not criminalize Christianity — I’m Catholic. It’s [sic] gives contemporary examples of potential antisemitism," Lawler said. "Calling all Jews Christ killers is a form of antisemitism. Believing in the gospel is not."

In an interview on CNN, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) echoed what his Republican colleague said.

"I want Christians to be able to practice however Christians deem that they need to, and we're not interested in messing with the gospel nor does this language do that," Moskowitz, a co-sponsor of the bill, explained.

As a matter of historical fact, the Jews — a collective reference to all Jews — did not kill Jesus. In fact, the only person with the authority to order an execution and dispatch Roman soldiers to carry it out in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death would have been the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.

Moreover, the fact that Jesus was crucified — not stoned — is clear evidence that Jesus died at the hands of Romans, not Jews. Crucifixion was a form of Roman execution that is not Torah-authorized.

It is true, however, that a relatively small group of powerful Jewish leaders colluded to have Jesus killed, and thus it's accurate to say that both Romans and Jews ultimately played a role in Jesus' death.

But to claim "the Jews killed Jesus" raises the obvious question: Which ones? Jesus himself was a Jew, all of his disciples were Jews, and the first generations of the Christian movement were mostly composed of Jews. Did those Jews play a role? Almost certainly not.

And yes, it's true the Apostle Paul refers to "Jews who killed the Lord Jesus" in his letter 1 Thessalonians. But it's impossible that Paul was deploying a broadside against all Jews; Paul himself, after all, was a Pharisaic Jew. Rather, Paul was almost certainly referring to his contemporary zealous Jewish opponents, who persecuted early non-Jewish followers of Jesus or enacted on them Torah observances that Paul did not believe gentile followers should — or, in many cases, could — perform.

Meanwhile, it's true that throughout history, Christians were often the biggest perpetrators of violence against Jews, and the claim that "the Jews killed Jesus" has been used to justify anti-Semitism.

But the bill does not establish a criminal statute, and it does not outlaw Christianity or any part of the New Testament. Christians, therefore, have no reason to fear the bill regarding its potential implications on the Bible or their faith.

A more prudent concern, however, are the free-speech implications of the bill should it become law.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fox News anchor totally dismantles Democrat's narrative defending Hunter Biden from contempt charges



Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) believes Republicans are hypocrites for pursuing contempt charges against Hunter Biden, but Fox News anchor John Roberts on Wednesday poked holes through Moskowitz's claims.

The interview took place after Hunter Biden made a surprise appearance at a House Oversight Committee hearing focused on holding him in contempt.

Moskowitz's argument is twofold. First, he claimed Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R) invited Hunter to testify publicly, but he is now "reneging the invitation" and only wants the testimony to take place in a "basement" to produce a transcript Americans will "never see." Second, he claimed GOP lawmakers who defied the Jan. 6 committee must be held in contempt if Hunter faces the same punishment.

Roberts quickly disarmed the narrative.

"First of all, you said a transcript that will never see the light of day. These transcripts will be released to the public. I mean, that's part of the deal — it was the same thing with the Jan. 6 committee," the anchor responded.

"And in terms of whether or not Comer ever said, 'Look, you can do it behind closed doors, you can do it in public' — the subpoena was specifically for a behind-closed-doors deposition, which Hunter Biden continues to refuse to do. So legal experts are saying it's not what Comer may or may not have said in public, it's what the subpoena says," Roberts pointed out.

His narrative totally undercut, Moskowitz conceded that Hunter's attorneys are those in a position to battle the subpoena.

Moskowitz, however, did commit to support the contempt resolutions against Hunter — which will go to a full House vote — only if the GOP congressmen who defied the Jan. 6 committee receive equal punishment.

But this is misleading. First, because those subpoenas were issued by a committee in the 117th Congress, they expired when the Congress ended on Jan. 3, 2023, and thus they are no longer enforceable. Second, Congress, by virtue of not bringing contempt charges against the GOP lawmakers, chose not to punish them, though they were referred to the House Ethics Committee.

Putting a nail in the coffin, Roberts played clips of Democrats previously defending closed-door depositions as necessary when the Jan. 6 committee was conducting its investigation.

"A lot of critics are saying, Congressman, 'Rules for me, but not for thee,'" Roberts noted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘Never Loaned My Brother Money’: Comer Clashes With Dem Rep After Accused Of Committing Same Crimes As Bidens

'they're so financially illiterate'

House Democrat vows to break party lines to hold Rep. Rashida Tlaib accountable: 'I would support that'



Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz (Fla.) vowed Monday to support future censure resolutions against his Democratic colleague, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).

Last week, Moskowitz helped kill a resolution censuring Tlaib for "anti-Semitic activity, sympathizing with terrorist organizations, and leading an insurrection at the United States Capitol Complex." The resolution, brought by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), was referring to a pro-Palestinian protest that flooded the Cannon House Office Building as the alleged "insurrection."

But Moskowitz told CNN anchor Jake Tapper Monday evening that he will break party ranks the next time a resolution censuring Tlaib comes to the House floor.

"If a censure comes on her misinformation on the hospital bombing which obviously we know was not true, that she continued to spread even after intelligence came out [that] it wasn't true and 'on from the river to the sea,' I would support that censure," Moskowitz said.

Fortunately for Moskowitz, he will have that opportunity as soon as Tuesday.

The House is expected to act on two censure resolutions, one brought by Greene and another brought by Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.).

Greene's resolution would censure Tlaib for "anti-Semitic activity and sympathizing with terrorist organizations" while McCormick's resolution would censure Tlaib for "promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel."

On Tuesday afternoon, the House moved McCormick's resolution to a full House vote. The House is expected to act on Greene's later in the evening.

For her part, Tlaib has admitted no wrongdoing. She claimed on Monday that her congressional colleagues are "more focused on silencing me than they are on saving lives," alleging they have shown her "that Palestinian lives simply do not matter to them."

"Rather than acknowledge the voice and perspective of the only Palestinian American in Congress, my colleagues have resorted to distorting my positions in resolutions filled with obvious lies," Tlaib added. "Meanwhile, each day that passes without a ceasefire brings more death and destruction upon innocent civilians, who have nowhere safe to go, drawing outrage and condemnation from the American people and the international community."

But according to Moskowitz, "there can be no ceasefire with Hamas."

In his interview on CNN, the Florida Democrat drew an important distinction about the demand from Tlaib and others for a "ceasefire."

"Instead, we should be calling for Hamas to surrender. How about that? How about we call for the terrorist organization to surrender instead of a country like Israel defending its people?" Moskowitz mic-dropped.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrat praises Fox News host for asking important question about Rashida Tlaib pushing Hamas propaganda



Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz (Fla.) praised a Fox News host on Tuesday for asking if the House should punish Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her refusal to believe that Israel did not bomb the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza.

Invoking Tlaib's latest statement in which she admitted that she still doubts Israel's denials, Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany asked Moskowitz whether Congress should dole out "some sort of punishment" against her for seemingly believing Hamas propaganda over her own government's intelligence.

"Thanks, Kayleigh, thanks for bringing this up and keeping this on the forefront," Moskowitz responded. "Any member of Congress who continues to trust Hamas’ information over U.S. information is obviously deeply concerning."

When McEnany clarified her query about punishment — asking if Congress should censure Tlaib — Moskowitz endorsed such action.

"Listen, I think once we get a House speaker here, I think that censure resolution will come to the floor, and I do think it's something that everyone should consider," he said.

"This is about U.S. intelligence. This is about U.S. information. This is about not willing to trust the Biden administration and U.S. intelligence, but instead continuing to pretend like the Ministry of Health out of Gaza is nothing other than a terrorist organization telling people what we want to hear," Moskowitz explained.

Two lawmakers have already filed resolutions to censure Tlaib.

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.) filed a censure resolution against Tlaib two weeks ago for "her long-standing history of anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric toward Israel." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also plans to file a censure resolution against Tlaib for "anti-Semitic activity" and "sympathizing with terrorist organizations."

The House, however, is unlikely to vote on the resolutions until a new speaker is elected.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is the most recent House lawmaker to be censured.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!